Social accountability process is extremely relevant in terms of developing countries. We can see this in context of African Countries like Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The three clear mechanisms for social accountability in the cycle of public expenditure are as follows: Independent Budget Analysis and advocacy (IBA); Participatory Public Expenditure Tracking (PPET); and Participatory Performance Monitoring (PPM). Independent Budget Analysis (IBA) means the research, advocacy and dissemination of information on issues related to official budgets by civil society and other actors independent of the government. Participatory Public Expenditure Tracking (PPET) involves the use of civil society to track how the public sector spends the money that was allocated to it. Participatory Performance Monitoring (PPM) consists of citizen and community scorecards that solicit user feedback on the performance of public services. Citizen Report Cards (CRCs) are used in situations where demand side data, such as user perceptions on quality and satisfaction with public services, is absent.

There is also a broader conceptual framework of social accountability practice. Horizontal accountability entails setting up public policies and government procedures, whereas vertical accountability involves public mechanisms for enforcing accountability, both before and during the exercise of public authority, and includes citizen groups and a vibrant independent media. This vertical alignment leads to a broader understanding of good governance, requiring continual give and take between the state and society. Such social accountability has direct relevance to aligning public expenditures with pro-poor policies in country Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and ensuring that resources are disbursed for effective delivery of services to the poor.

Social accountability approaches have yielded positive results. Aware that their actions are being monitored by citizen groups, public officials know that they may be held accountable for budget discrepancies or failure to deliver adequate services. New budget monitoring skills have led, in some cases, to budgetary adjustments and funding shifts to support higher citizen priorities. In the case of the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM) and the Institute of Democracy, both from South Africa, monitoring has led to improvements in public financial reporting and reduced the need for audit disclaimers by government officials. The credibility and influence of civil society, as the force driving these improvements, have grown as a consequence.

In context of Bhutan the concept of administrative accountability was introduced and operationalized with the launching of country’s first five year plan in sixties. In Sri Lanka also methods like Community Assessment Process and tools like community score card have proved useful. These have been used in Gemi Diriya Project. These tools have held decision makers and service providers accountable to the clients.

Some of the widely used methods for social accountability practised in many of the developing countries are (1) citizen involvement in preparing and analyzing budgets (2) institutionalization of proactive public engagement and participation in the formulation of public policies and plans (3) citizen participation in the monitoring and evaluation of priority services, often according to indicators that citizens themselves have selected (4)  public oversight and monitoring, and (5) public expenditure tracking surveys.